61 ms·
- "clear strong net positive for society," This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that pr
by perihelions 2y ago
- "clear strong net positive for society,"
This has been debated to death for centuries already: of course it's a clear net positive, in the same sense that prohibiting alcohol, cannabis, regulating video games, legislating sex, putting ankle monitors on fat people to monitor their activity levels—all these things are "obvious" social improvements: in practice, not at all. These isn't a novel debate. It's a revisited, misguided paternalism to imagine you can fix people's (admittedly defective!) lives, make them healthier and better people, through coercive political agencies supervising and guiding them. (A less charitable comment would substitute "authoritarian" for "paternalistic").
There's two experiments running in parallel right now. If you want to live a free human in a free society, live in the West; if you want to try the alternative of a benevolent father-government, go to the Middle Kingdom—go somewhere where you can assume that lifestyle, where government shuts off your addictive video games, puts social credit scores on your alcohol purchases, sends social police to re-harmonize your life when it's un-harmonized. Where (of course) TikTok has been banned for a long time already, and all dis-harmonious, time-wasting social media is already helpfully filtered out of your life by a nationwide internet filter.
Please don't turn the West into the East: speaking for myself, I would like the option of living in a free society, somewhere. Unfiltered internet access is a core part of that.
- the_af 2y agoI don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'd say this thing with attention grabbing/addictive feedback loops seems to be qualitatively different. Are you truly a "free" citizen if corporations have hacked your brain? This wouldn't be a ban on consumption either. It's not penalizing the person who drinks alcohol or uses cannabis or pays for sex. It's going after the providers, who are not small-time like hookers, but huge businesses like Facebook and YouTube. And it'd not be banning the content itself (so it's not Thought Police) but regulating the ways to provide such content; it's going after the hack-your-brain marketing tactic. I don't know if it's feasible but it seems fundamentally different to your other examples, and doesn't seem an example of Nanny State either. An addict doesn't really have "free choice".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rangestransform 2y ago> An addict doesn't really have "free choice". You can’t just call people addicts to justify paternalistic policy over them, you can similarly justify total tobacco bans, alcohol prohibition, etc etc etc
- the_af 2y agoWhy not? Some things are banned and we don't consider that paternalistic. Besides, each thing must be considered individually, e.g. tobacco bans make sense because tobacco affects second-hand smokers; many countries forbid selling alcohol to underage people and some place some restrictions on even adults. You're also glossing over the nuances of my comment.
- pelario 2y agoOf course there are tons of open questions, yet you made a huge false dichotomy. I would bet that most people agree with banning sales of alcohol, cigarettes and opioid to kids.
- robertlagrant 2y agoBut it would be silly to classify opioid use as gambling, which was the proposal. Figuring out the real issue, and banning that for kids, might well be a good idea. But to my mind the thinking from parents is still very open around what kids should be allowed to do, so it might be too soon.
- dathinab 2y agoThe argument was to treat it like gambling. Not to classify it as gambling.
- dathinab 2y agoI think your argument drifted far of the point I was making. Which was treat it like gambling. Which means it's fully legal for adults to do. Just don't overly expose children to it.